Health Effects of Climate Change report edited


Karlin
Avatar
#1
Full Version of White House "Edited" CDC Climate Report - with highlights! -
http://tinyurl.com/ytxa3u

The full report from last week on the health effects of global warming and climate change [GW/cc] is there at that link , with all the RED being what was edited OUT by the White House.

There was originally 3,107 words, edited down to just 1,500 words once the White house got thru with it.

An increase in many significant diseases is forecast to occur due to Gw/cc.

This report was the "Climate Change and Public Health Statement" of Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H. Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

It is no small deal, this is the major health agency of the USA.

Denial is no joke, these politicians are playing with our lives and the stability of planet earth's atmosphere.

Importing oil and refining gasoline are the two biggest money-makers in the energy and transportation industries, and these politicians are protecting their profits by denying climate change.
 
Extrafire
Avatar
#2
Quote:

...and these politicians are protecting their profits by denying climate change.

Oh, knock it off! You catastrophists keep saying that and you know it isn't true. What they deny is that climate change is MAN MADE! Get it right next time.

And besides, the tradeoff for arguably increasing the average global temperature by 0.6 degrees in the 20th century has been nearly a doubling in life expectancy, a huge decline in infant mortality, and the steadily increasing spread of middle-class prosperity across the planet's population. Seems the benefits greatly outweigh the purported bad heath effects by many orders of magnitude.

Besides which, what would you suggest we do to save the planet from certain doom? I've been asking that question for a month and a half and not one of you has an answer.
 
Tonington
Avatar
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

And besides, the tradeoff for arguably increasing the average global temperature by 0.6 degrees in the 20th century has been nearly a doubling in life expectancy, a huge decline in infant mortality, and the steadily increasing spread of middle-class prosperity across the planet's population. Seems the benefits greatly outweigh the purported bad heath effects by many orders of magnitude.

Of course, it's hard to tell what the implications and direct causes are when the report by the top health scientists are chopped. Prosperity and adverse health conditions are not mutually exclusive.
 
Extrafire
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Of course, it's hard to tell what the implications and direct causes are when the report by the top health scientists are chopped. Prosperity and adverse health conditions are not mutually exclusive.

Couldn't be all that adverse, considering the doubling of life expectancy.
 
Tonington
Avatar
#5
Health is not only quantity of life, but quality of life. But again, it's hard to know the adverse conditions without the full report of those in the know.

Do you endorse the censure of government scientists for political partisanship?
 
Extrafire
Avatar
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Health is not only quantity of life, but quality of life. But again, it's hard to know the adverse conditions without the full report of those in the know.

Do you endorse the censure of government scientists for political partisanship?

Well you know how much better the quality of life is than before the industrial revolution.

And no I don't, but that's not what I'm taking about.
 
Tonington
Avatar
#7
Well that's the whole point of this thread. That same administration also canceled the NASA project which would for the first time give climatologists satellite data which records how much incoming solar energy is reflected and how much is absorbed, 24 hours a day.
 
Extrafire
Avatar
#8
Yeah, I know what the whine is about. Seems rather a trivial concern, compared to the benefits derived from all that energy usage.
 
Tonington
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

Yeah, I know what the whine is about. Seems rather a trivial concern, compared to the benefits derived from all that energy usage.

I don't think health concerns should ever be considered trivial.
 
Extrafire
Avatar
#10
The health concerns being talked about are trivial compared to the health benefits that have ensued.
 
Tonington
Avatar
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

The health concerns being talked about are trivial compared to the health benefits that have ensued.

Did you read both articles? I'll say again, health concerns are never trivial. Are we to accept the gains we have made and then cast off future detrimental health effects because some kind of ahead of the game attitude? What a load of crap.

The health effects will not be equitable. The poorest stand to lose the most, and the poorest are the lower tail of those distribution curves. I don't think they would see added pressure as trivial.
 
Canucklehead
Avatar
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post


And besides, the tradeoff for arguably increasing the average global temperature by 0.6 degrees in the 20th century has been nearly a doubling in life expectancy, a huge decline in infant mortality, and the steadily increasing spread of middle-class prosperity across the planet's population. Seems the benefits greatly outweigh the purported bad heath effects by many orders of magnitude.

.

There couldn't be any correlation to the increased life spans, healthier lives and a decrease in death rates for most any given disease/ailment to the advent of modern medical care, could there?

I did not read the report but have read enough to know that we will be confronted with virii and bacteria which have not seen the light of day in centuries or millenia... it could quite possibly make the death of all those natives due to the flu a few hundred years ago look like a mere runny nose by comparison.

For what it's worth though, the planet will be fine. Homosapiens, however, may not fare so well.
 
Niflmir
Avatar
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

Oh, knock it off! You catastrophists keep saying that and you know it isn't true. What they deny is that climate change is MAN MADE! Get it right next time.

And besides, the tradeoff for arguably increasing the average global temperature by 0.6 degrees in the 20th century has been nearly a doubling in life expectancy, a huge decline in infant mortality, and the steadily increasing spread of middle-class prosperity across the planet's population. Seems the benefits greatly outweigh the purported bad heath effects by many orders of magnitude.

Besides which, what would you suggest we do to save the planet from certain doom? I've been asking that question for a month and a half and not one of you has an answer.

Labelling a person is really low brow.

What is Karlin suggesting we do to protect people and the planet from possible adverse consequences of climate change? That we don't censor the people that are informed about these issues.

People have been giving you answers for months but you just disregard them.
 
Extrafire
Avatar
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Did you read both articles? I'll say again, health concerns are never trivial. Are we to accept the gains we have made and then cast off future detrimental health effects because some kind of ahead of the game attitude? What a load of crap.

The health effects will not be equitable. The poorest stand to lose the most, and the poorest are the lower tail of those distribution curves. I don't think they would see added pressure as trivial.

The "future detrimental health effects" are nothing more than fortune telling. No-one knows the future, and if you went back over all the studies and papers of the last 50 years you'd find a whole plethora of predictions of dire health effects that never materialized. I'll bet good money that these predictions won't happen either. Do you check your horoscope in the paper every day and believe that too?

But just for you I'll go over some of them

Quote:

Direct effects of heat,

We can take a lot more heat than some people like to admit. It isn't the heat, it's the acclimatization. If you're acclimatized to 30 and it goes up to 40, you suffer. But if you're acclimatized to 40 and the temp is 40, you don't. This has been well demonstrated, so if the overall temps increase, health effects would be minimal at worst.
Quote:

Health effects related to extreme weather events,

Like a heat wave? We already get them. Again, minimal effect.
Quote:

Air pollution-related health effects,

Air pollution is chemicals and particulate in the air. Not caused by GW.
Quote:

Allergic diseases,

Caused by chemicals and pollutants, not global warming. Some allergies like "hay fever" may increase, but that's about all. Minimal effect.
Quote:

Water- and food-borne infectious diseases,

That's why we have chlorination and refrigeration and health regulations. Unlikely to increase at all.
Quote:

Food and water scarcity, at least for some populations,

Overpopulation of desert areas may result in water shortages. Food can be (and is) transported.
Quote:

Mental health problems, and

Caused, no doubt, by climate fear mongers in school kids
Quote:

Long-term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects

The same as now.

As I said, I doubt the disease problem will materialize. If that were the case, then we'd already see serious problems in warmer climates, like Florida, Texas, California, while Canada, Norway and Russia would be much healthier areas of the world to live. Our energy consumptive ways have doubled life expectancy. Do you really believe these imagined future diseases will cut the average life expectancy in half? Gimme a break! You guys are so gullible.
 
Extrafire
Avatar
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by CanuckleheadView Post

There couldn't be any correlation to the increased life spans, healthier lives and a decrease in death rates for most any given disease/ailment to the advent of modern medical care, could there?

Why yes, my point exactly. Modern medicine requiring a lot of energy.

Quote: Originally Posted by CanuckleheadView Post

I did not read the report but have read enough to know that we will be confronted with virii and bacteria which have not seen the light of day in centuries or millenia... it could quite possibly make the death of all those natives due to the flu a few hundred years ago look like a mere runny nose by comparison.

For what it's worth though, the planet will be fine. Homosapiens, however, may not fare so well.

Nonsense. Humanity thrives during warming eras. If you want to know what real disease epidemics are like, watch

this excerpt

from the History Channel.
 
Extrafire
Avatar
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Labelling a person is really low brow.

Yes, I've been labeled a few times myself (denier, delayer)

Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

What is Karlin suggesting we do to protect people and the planet from possible adverse consequences of climate change? That we don't censor the people that are informed about these issues.

I'll agree with not censoring. Including not censoring the "denier" side, presenting both sides equally to the public and to school kids.

Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

People have been giving you answers for months but you just disregard them.

I haven't been back on here for two months yet, and I only posed the question a month and a half ago, and only Tonington has attempted to answer it. Neither he nor anyone else has put forward a solution to the problem posed in my question.
 
YoungJoonKim
#17
Extrafire, lol?
The fact that White House edited the whole darn thing and reduced the report to a crumble, that IS serious whether Global warming be true or not.

Quote:

the 20th century has been nearly a doubling in life expectancy, a huge decline in infant mortality, and the steadily increasing spread of middle-class prosperity across the planet's population.

These has to do with the massive infrastructure advancement, medical breakthrough, high quality of life, and energy output....mostly oil now days. This prosperity is only temporary, if you need my opinion.

Quote:

Overpopulation of desert areas may result in water shortages. Food can be (and is) transported.

transportation requires use of energy and that energy is oil which is unsustainable. We don't know when it will run out and are you suggesting we keep increasing energy demand ALL over the world? Have you calculated the cost of food after transportation?

Quote:

You guys are so gullible.

I don't really care much about global warming but I know that I'd rather believe in global warming than White House.
 
Extrafire
Avatar
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by YoungJoonKimView Post

Extrafire, lol?
The fact that White House edited the whole darn thing and reduced the report to a crumble, that IS serious whether Global warming be true or not.

Yeah, I didn't disagree with that part of the conversation.
Quote: Originally Posted by YoungJoonKimView Post

These has to do with the massive infrastructure advancement, medical breakthrough, high quality of life, and energy output....mostly oil now days. This prosperity is only temporary, if you need my opinion.

Yup, all due to energy use. We depend on it to maintain our way of life. Our prosperity is vulnerable to global political upheavals and/or disruption of our energy supply. If neither happens, we'll continue on more and more prosperous.
Quote: Originally Posted by YoungJoonKimView Post

transportation requires use of energy and that energy is oil which is unsustainable. We don't know when it will run out and are you suggesting we keep increasing energy demand ALL over the world? Have you calculated the cost of food after transportation?

In the long term, oil supplies may well be unsustainable, or if that new theory for the formation of oil is correct, it will be unlimited, though much more expensive. We know that we have 90 years in reserves at this point. Energy demand all over the world has nothing to what we do, it's what is happening as third world countries come up into the modern healthier economies. Are you suggesting we keep them backward and poor?

Quote: Originally Posted by YoungJoonKimView Post

I don't really care much about global warming but I know that I'd rather believe in global warming than White House.

Oh I believe in global warming, and global cooling, for that matter. Perfectly natural. It's the human cause I dispute, and the impending disaster that I deny. As for the White House, I'm no fan of the current occupant, or the previous one either.
 
Niflmir
Avatar
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

I haven't been back on here for two months yet, and I only posed the question a month and a half ago, and only Tonington has attempted to answer it. Neither he nor anyone else has put forward a solution to the problem posed in my question.

The fact that you don't agree with what people suggest does not mean that people have not proposed solutions. Since you seem to disregard that fact that I too put something there, however brief. Furthermore, what qualifies you to judge the validity of proposals?
 
YoungJoonKim
#20
Quote:

In the long term, oil supplies may well be unsustainable, or if that new theory for the formation of oil is correct, it will be unlimited, though much more expensive. We know that we have 90 years in reserves at this point. Energy demand all over the world has nothing to what we do, it's what is happening as third world countries come up into the modern healthier economies. Are you suggesting we keep them backward and poor?

No..I think we should be poor and go back. Start from scratch weeee


Quote:

if that new theory for the formation of oil is correct

I have no idea how oil can be unlimited. Rather, I think that's a awkward position...
 
Tonington
Avatar
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

The "future detrimental health effects" are nothing more than fortune telling. No-one knows the future, and if you went back over all the studies and papers of the last 50 years you'd find a whole plethora of predictions of dire health effects that never materialized. I'll bet good money that these predictions won't happen either.

Comparing trends to fortune telling is dishonest. Of course no one knows the future. Extrapolating trends is not fortune telling.

Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

Do you check your horoscope in the paper every day and believe that too?

Ummm, no.


Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

We can take a lot more heat than some people like to admit. It isn't the heat, it's the acclimatization. If you're acclimatized to 30 and it goes up to 40, you suffer. But if you're acclimatized to 40 and the temp is 40, you don't. This has been well demonstrated, so if the overall temps increase, health effects would be minimal at worst.

Pointless. The point is that temperatures are going up. Acclimatized to 40 and it stays 40, yup no problems there.

Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

Like a heat wave? We already get them. Again, minimal effect.

Like the thousands who died in Europe, or the heat waves making wildfire season longer? Not minimal at all.

Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

Air pollution is chemicals and particulate in the air. Not caused by GW.

And some of those particulates are greenhouse gases.

Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

Caused by chemicals and pollutants, not global warming. Some allergies like "hay fever" may increase, but that's about all. Minimal effect.

And some of those chemicals and pollutants are greenhouse gases.

Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

Overpopulation of desert areas may result in water shortages. Food can be (and is) transported.

Scarcity isn't isolated to desert areas. Many areas of the US are entering increasingly frequent droughts.

Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

Caused, no doubt, by climate fear mongers in school kids

Umm, and the increases in suicide when economic situation is made worse by climate change.

Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

The same as now.

Didn't realize you were a trained Epidemiologist. Why aren't you the one giving these reports?

Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

Our energy consumptive ways have doubled life expectancy. Do you really believe these imagined future diseases will cut the average life expectancy in half? Gimme a break! You guys are so gullible.

Who said anything about cutting in half? Any trends resulting in a decreasing life expectancy should be treated seriously. Your callous and flippant comments are disturbing.
 
Canucklehead
Avatar
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

Why yes, my point exactly. Modern medicine requiring a lot of energy.

Nonsense. Humanity thrives during warming eras. If you want to know what real disease epidemics are like, watch

this excerpt

from the History Channel.


Humanity thrives during warming era does it? So we have been through the re-introduction of long since extinct virii before have we? Do explain how a species which has zero tolerance or defence against something is going to be able to cope with them in a reaaonable timespan. Modern science can't even get it right with what faces us now and with the anti-biotics and the anti-bacterial product craze we are now in, humans are in for a whole heap of trouble. I do not doubt we, as a species, will find a cure/vaccination against some of the things we are going to face but thinking it will be an overnight affair or a complete answer is a bit naive and placing far too much faith in our medical community.

Going off on a bit of a tangent here... considering the sheer number of people living on the coast and that sea levels are and will continue to rise I am not so sure that we'll thrive...unless we get lucky and one of the freshly thawed nasties gives us gills.
 
Extrafire
Avatar
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

The fact that you don't agree with what people suggest does not mean that people have not proposed solutions. Since you seem to disregard that fact that I too put something there, however brief. Furthermore, what qualifies you to judge the validity of proposals?

People have indeed made proposals, but a proposal does not equate with a solution. Having heard climate change alarmists admit that Kyoto successfully implemented would have no effect on the climate, and having heard alarmists also admit that all of the suggestions put forward for actions Canada should take would not be enough to meet our Kyoto targets, it's fairly apparent that what has been put forward here is insufficient.
 
Pangloss
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by ExtrafireView Post

Couldn't be all that adverse, considering the doubling of life expectancy.

Except for all the people that will be underwater. Oh, and the ones in drought. And the starving because of mass extinctions.

Other than that, rosy as heck. Drinks are on me!

Pangloss
 
Extrafire
Avatar
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by YoungJoonKimView Post

I have no idea how oil can be unlimited.

It's called the abiotic theory of oil formation. Conventional (western) theory is that oil is remnants of organisms trapped in sediment that formed into sedimentary rock. However, it is known that hydrocarbons are present on other bodies in the solar system (I believe Titan, moon of Saturn is one) where no life ever existed. It's also known that oil can form from certain abundant elements under high pressure and temperature. So the theory says that oil is formed deep in the mantle of the earth and seeps upward (because of the pressure) through fractures in the bedrock. Quite a few producing wells have been drilled in places where biotic theory says there shouldn't be oil, ie - no sedimentary rock. According to abiotic theory, the oil is mostly found in sedimentary rock because it's porous, and a natural place for it to pool. Apparently the bedrock under Saudi oilfields is very fractured.

If this theory turns out to be correct, then there is unlimited oil available, only it won't be cheap.
 
Extrafire
Avatar
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Comparing trends to fortune telling is dishonest. Of course no one knows the future. Extrapolating trends is not fortune telling.

Those weren't trends we were talking about, rather "forecasts", kind of like Nicholas Stern's economic forecast which turned out to be not worth the paper it was printed on.
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Pointless. The point is that temperatures are going up. Acclimatized to 40 and it stays 40, yup no problems there.

I know refugees that we sponsored from Sudan, and they did quite well in 40+ temps (although, they said, the white people there would go lie in the river when it got hottest). Now they are acclimatized to our temps, and they'd have trouble going back, just like we would.
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Like the thousands who died in Europe, or the heat waves making wildfire season longer? Not minimal at all.

If memory serves, about 20 times as many people die from cold as from heat, so the result would be lives saved. A huge percentage of those people who died in that killer heat wave in Europe were elderly, whose offspring went off to the beaches to cool off, leaving the grandparents in non-air conditioned apartments to fend for themselves. Not a very flattering testament to modern self-centered Europeans. In Canada (again if memory serves) our worst recorded heat wave was in 1936, when more than 800 died in Toronto alone.
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

And some of those chemicals and pollutants are greenhouse gases.

Yeah, right. And some are oxygen and nitrogen too.
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Scarcity isn't isolated to desert areas. Many areas of the US are entering increasingly frequent droughts.

Many areas of North America have been unusually free of drought for the last century. Could be we're just getting back to normal.
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Umm, and the increases in suicide when economic situation is made worse by climate change.

Except that climate change is normal, and the more technology we have to deploy, the greater our chances of adapting to it. In past centuries when we were more at the mercy of nature, climate fluctuations had much greater effect than they do now. Few people commit suicide due to economic devastation. I know a number of people who have lost everything, myself included, and suicide never entered their minds. It's an experience I wouldn't wish on anyone, but you get through it, even when it happens late in life. The idea of economic suicide is greatly exaggerated; even in the collapse of '29 (I've read somewhere) there was only one officially recorded as such.
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Didn't realize you were a trained Epidemiologist. Why aren't you the one giving these reports?

Contrary to what Al Gore et al say, epidemics don't behave differently in warmer climates than in cold. Doesn't take an epidemiologist to know that.
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Who said anything about cutting in half? Any trends resulting in a decreasing life expectancy should be treated seriously. Your callous and flippant comments are disturbing.

In order for disease to negate the positive health effects of fossil fuel use (life expectancy more than doubled) it would have to cut life expectancy in half. A trend that decreases life expectantly (obesity for example) should indeed be treated seriously. However, a forecast that the very thing that doubled life expectancy will now lessen it somewhat should be examined in context. Considering my comments to be either flippant or callous indicates to me that you have not critically thought out the subject.
 
gopher
Avatar
#27
The NBC network is presenting a series of reports on the global warming issue this week. Hopefully, it will be presented in a manner so that any science layman can readily understand it.
 
Extrafire
Avatar
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by CanuckleheadView Post

Humanity thrives during warming era does it?

According to historical accounts, it most certainly does. Guess you didn't watch that video I linked to about plagues and epidemics during the Little Ice Age. Too bad, because it's been removed from YouTube. Guess someone didn't want us to know the truth of the matter.

Quote: Originally Posted by CanuckleheadView Post

So we have been through the re-introduction of long since extinct virii before have we? Do explain how a species which has zero tolerance or defence against something is going to be able to cope with them in a reaaonable timespan.

Uhmmm....how can something that's been long extinct be re-introduced????
Quote: Originally Posted by CanuckleheadView Post

Modern science can't even get it right with what faces us now and with the anti-biotics and the anti-bacterial product craze we are now in, humans are in for a whole heap of trouble. I do not doubt we, as a species, will find a cure/vaccination against some of the things we are going to face but thinking it will be an overnight affair or a complete answer is a bit naive and placing far too much faith in our medical community.

Hey, we agree on something!!! The antibiotic craze is silly, and harmful to say the least.

But the idea that all kinds of unknown powerful organisms are going to attack us when the climate warms is just so much nonsense. Is Brazil currently being devastated by them? So why would we be if we warm up?
Quote: Originally Posted by CanuckleheadView Post

Going off on a bit of a tangent here... considering the sheer number of people living on the coast and that sea levels are and will continue to rise I am not so sure that we'll thrive...unless we get lucky and one of the freshly thawed nasties gives us gills.

Oh no, not you too! Puleeze, that mythical sea level rise ain't about to happen. That's been debunked as baseless alarmism so many times I didn't think anyone really believed it anymore.
 
Extrafire
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by PanglossView Post

Except for all the people that will be underwater. Oh, and the ones in drought. And the starving because of mass extinctions.

Other than that, rosy as heck. Drinks are on me!

Pangloss

Why do you people believe those hysterical soothsayer predictions?
 
Walter
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

The NBC network is presenting a series of reports on the global warming issue this week. Hopefully, it will be presented in a manner so that any science layman can readily understand it.

And it will be completely objective as always.
 
no new posts